This bill amends the Americans with Disabilities Act by adding a new Title VI that channels claims about inaccessible, consumer-facing websites and mobile applications through an administrative track before plaintiffs may file private lawsuits. Under the proposal, an individual must notify the website or app owner, allow a 180-day cure period, and then may submit a complaint to the Department of Justice; the DOJ must complete an investigation within 360 days and its determination (or failure to decide within that period) functions as a final determination for purposes of when a civil action may start.
The measure is aimed at reducing serial demand letters and early-filed suits against mainly small businesses by shifting the enforcement gatekeeping role to the DOJ and imposing fixed timelines. For compliance officers and business leaders, it replaces immediate private enforcement leverage with a multi-step administrative timeline and creates new operational and legal considerations for web accessibility programs, vendor contracts, and risk management.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires claimants to first notify a private owner or operator of an allegedly noncompliant consumer-facing website or mobile app and give the owner 180 days to cure. If the owner does not cure, the claimant may file a complaint with the Department of Justice within a second 180-day window; the DOJ must investigate and render a determination within 360 days, and absence of a DOJ decision in that period is treated as a determination of compliance.
Who It Affects
Small and medium private businesses that operate consumer-facing websites or mobile applications, their vendors (web developers and accessibility consultants), the DOJ Civil Rights Division, and private attorneys who bring ADA Title III web-accessibility suits on behalf of individuals with disabilities.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the initial enforcement step from private litigation to an administrative process, reducing immediate settlement pressure on businesses but concentrating enforcement power and timing in the DOJ. That change alters litigation economics for serial plaintiffs, affects how businesses prioritize remediation, and raises operational questions for agencies expected to process new complaints at scale.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB7328 inserts a new Title VI into the ADA that requires exhaustion of administrative remedies for claims about consumer-facing websites and mobile applications owned or operated by private entities. The process starts with a private individual notifying the website or app owner that the product does not meet Title III accessibility standards.
That notice triggers a 180-day cure window during which the owner can modify the site or app to address the alleged barrier.
If the owner fails to cure within those 180 days, the individual has a limited window to escalate: they may file a complaint with the Department of Justice, and when they do the DOJ must provide a copy of the complaint to the owner. The DOJ then has 360 days to complete an investigation and determine whether a violation exists.
The bill treats a DOJ finding of compliance during that 360-day period as a final agency determination that bars a private suit; critically, the bill also treats the DOJ’s failure to issue a determination within that 360-day window as a final determination of compliance for the purpose of permitting or barring subsequent civil actions.The text defines the covered digital properties narrowly as “consumer facing” websites and mobile applications — those purposefully made accessible to the public for commercial purposes — and describes a mobile application to include native mobile apps and certain web-based apps tailored to mobile platforms. The amendment attaches the new Title VI to existing ADA Title III enforcement, so successful claims still arise under the ADA’s public-accommodation framework, but a private plaintiff may not commence civil litigation until the administrative path is completed under the bill’s timeline rules.Practically, the bill replaces many pre-suit demand letters and early-filed complaints with a prescribed notice, cure, and agency-review sequence.
That changes incentives for plaintiffs (who must now involve the DOJ to get past procedural barriers) and owners (who gain a statutory cure period but must be prepared to respond to a DOJ inquiry). For compliance teams, the law would require tracking notices, cure efforts, DOJ communications, and possible delays arising from the agency timeline.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bars private ADA Title III suits against consumer-facing websites or mobile apps until a claimant completes a three-step administrative process: notice, cure opportunity, and DOJ complaint and review.
An individual must give the website or app owner 180 days after notice to bring the property into compliance before filing with the Department of Justice.
A complaint to the DOJ must be filed within the 180-day period that begins after the initial 180-day cure window expires.
The DOJ has 360 days to investigate and issue a determination; the bill treats the DOJ’s failure to decide within 360 days as a final determination of compliance that affects whether a civil action may proceed.
The bill defines a ‘consumer facing website’ as one purposefully made accessible to the public for commercial purposes and defines ‘mobile application’ to include native mobile apps and certain web-based apps tailored to mobile platforms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the act the public name “Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act.” This has no substantive effect but signals the sponsor’s policy focus and will appear on future citations and committee materials.
Exhaustion requirement before private suit
Adds a requirement that individuals exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a private civil action under Title III for inaccessible consumer-facing websites or mobile apps. That prohibition on immediate litigation is the bill’s core procedural change: it converts what is commonly a private-right enforcement mechanism into a contingent right that only ripens after the specified administrative steps occur.
Notice, cure period, DOJ complaint, and agency timeline
Details the notice-and-cure mechanics. A claimant must first notify the owner/operator; the owner has 180 days to cure. If not cured, the claimant may file a complaint with the Department of Justice within a subsequent 180-day window; the DOJ must investigate and is given 360 days to reach a determination. The statute also requires the DOJ to provide the owner a copy of the complaint. Importantly, the provision declares that both an affirmative DOJ compliance determination and the DOJ’s failure to decide within 360 days function as final determinations for purposes of whether a civil suit can proceed.
Definitions of covered digital properties
Defines key terms: ‘consumer facing website’ means sites purposefully made accessible to the public for commercial purposes; ‘mobile application’ includes consumer-facing mobile software and web-based apps tailored to mobile platforms but executed on a server. Those definitions delimit what digital products fall under the administrative exhaustion regime and will matter in disputes about scope — for example, whether a B2B portal or internally hosted app qualifies.
Clerical amendment to the ADA table of contents
Inserts the new Title VI into the ADA’s table of contents. This is a housekeeping change that ensures the new provisions are properly indexed within the U.S. Code and accessible to practitioners and courts referencing ADA sections.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small and medium private businesses that operate consumer-facing websites or mobile apps — they gain a statutory 180‑day cure window and the potential protective effect of a DOJ non-decision being treated as compliance, which reduces pressure to settle quickly on demand letters.
- Website and mobile-app vendors and contractors — they receive a clearer timeline to remediate defects and may see fewer immediate litigation-driven change orders, enabling planned remediation work rather than rushed fixes.
- Businesses with limited exposure to serial demand-letter plaintiffs — companies that previously faced opportunistic suits will see reduced near-term litigation risk as claimants must now follow the administrative path.
Who Bears the Cost
- Owners and operators of consumer-facing websites and mobile apps — they must track notices, undertake remediation within the 180-day cure window, and respond to DOJ complaints and investigations, which imposes operational and potentially legal costs.
- Department of Justice Civil Rights Division — the DOJ will absorb investigative workload and resource strain from new complaints and fixed 360-day deadlines, potentially requiring staff increases or re-prioritization of existing matters.
- Individuals with disabilities and private enforcement lawyers — the change raises procedural hurdles and delays for private enforcement, potentially reducing incentives and practical ability to secure prompt remediation through lawsuits.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is balancing protection for small businesses from serial, settlement-driven lawsuits against the need for effective, timely enforcement of accessibility rights: giving DOJ an administrative gatekeeper role reduces nuisance litigation but risks leaving genuine accessibility violations unremedied if the agency lacks the bandwidth or if statutory timing creates a de facto immunity for noncompliant sites.
The bill creates several implementation and policy risks. First, it concentrates gatekeeping power in the DOJ and ties private enforcement to the agency’s capacity: treating DOJ non-action as a final determination of compliance effectively gives regulated entities a potential safe harbor if the agency cannot meet the 360-day deadline.
That risks underenforcement where DOJ resources are constrained. Second, the statutory definitions of “consumer facing” and the scope of covered mobile applications are short and fact-dependent; litigation over whether a given site or app falls inside Title VI could itself be protracted and may negate some of the bill’s intent to reduce early suits.
Third, the timing rules create perverse incentives. Plaintiffs might use the notice and then file with the DOJ to preserve claims while waiting out limitations, or conversely, strategic claimants could manipulate the sequence to delay remediation.
The bill also shifts cost burdens to businesses for responding to federal investigations and could disadvantage individuals if the administrative path provides slower or less flexible remedies than private litigation. Finally, the statutory rule that a DOJ non-decision equals compliance raises separation-of-powers and administrative-law questions — courts may be asked whether a deemed-compliance rule is consistent with the ADA’s remedial structure and with judicial review doctrines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.